If a general strike is effective in largely shutting down the economic activity in a city (highly unlikely, but let's assume), it means that hundreds, if not thousands of workers won't be able to work even if they don't want to participate in the strike. This might be because transportation is shut down or the businesses they work for are unable to operate normally. Loss of a day's pay would likely result.

What are the ethics of essentially conscripting the unwilling to participate in a general strike?

14. Not a separate issue at all in fact it is the entire point. If the system is bad enough then

Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 03:57 PM by Exultant Democracy

not taking part in it is the most ethical thing you can do. To someone partaking in a general strike the issues you bring up do not matter and from a moral stand point should not matter according to this justification.

If the cause is just and the system is unjust, then the top 1% in power are responsible for the fallout of the general strike. Blaming those on strike is just blaming the victim.

17. This is a common right wing tactic to used to fight against worker movements

Shoot it could have been used to argue against the abolishment of slavery.

Do you think MLK jr stopped to worry about the people inconvenienced by his bus boycott, the poor bus drives who didn't make the policy who wouldn't get paid? Or the poor company owners who just had to accommodate the racist jim crow era ethics of the south? Hell no!

Why because in the end it is an absurd argument that basically equates to not fighting for the rights of poor people because it may hurt poor people, when we know not fighting has never worked.

The most recent polls show greater support for the issues the OWS movement represents then there was for the American Independence movement. If we use Independence as a moral measuring bar then obviously a general strike is justified.

meaning strikes based on the first letter of the first or last name, strikes based on occupation, strikes based on place of birth. There would be no way to identify the common thread until it was too late and by then they'd be on to the next one. Productivity would slide dramatically and the plutocracy would start to lose lots of money.

The general strike is the last resort, the complete stoppage of business as usual until they cave.

In any case, strikes keep protests decentralized and people in their homes, away from nightsticks and tear gas.

Yeah, they'll try to fire people but they'll be put into the eventual position of firing everybody and not being able to find replacement workers who have not struck in the past.

That assumes enough people are desperate enough to go for the economic jugular. I don't think we're anywhere near that, yet. People are just starting to get educated, thanks in great part to the OWS and fellow strikers. They've had a lot of years blaming themselves and old habits might be hard to break.

29. It's impossible to tell. Life in society always means depending on other people's availability.

If it weren't for the fact that these people usually can be depended on, your sister would probably already be dead. But just because she might need them doesn't mean they're obligated to always be there. A strike is when people say that they refuse to do as their told unless they are given more in return. They have been there doing things of their own volition and your sister has no right to force them to do a thing, even if she is ill.

The unwilling are not conscripted into anything. The use of that phrase is argument by emotion. The unwilling are perfectly free to go about their affairs as they choose. They may not be able to avail themselves of services provided by others, but why are these others compelled to provide these services?

It will make a lot of people poorer, which the 1% will love! The poorer we get, the richer they get, in comparison.

Ethically, well just general work ethic says you work and care about customers. The customers are the 99% and in most cases do not want to do business with you, they need to. Trust me I already do my best to buy nothing but life has requirements.

All in all the banks would love to see us all living in tents.

Edit: Sorry. I know this is a popular idea. As usual, just my opinion.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.